Sep 21 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer: Merit Selection’s A Good Solution
In an editorial Saturday, the Philadelphia Inquirer praised Merit Selection as a good solution to the problems inherent in electing judges:
What citizens already have decided about judicial elections is that they’re confusing at best, with legal qualifications playing a minimal role in who wins. At their worst, judicial elections are tainted by what Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille calls the “corrosive effect of money.” An appointed judiciary with voter oversight is the remedy.
The editorial also pointed out the errors of those who claim Merit Selection would take something away from the voters:
Opponents of the merit-based appointment system argue that it disenfranchises voters. But the hybrid approach proposed for Pennsylvania would give voters their say.
Once appointed, Supreme Court justices - and judges on the Commonwealth and Superior Courts - all would have to pass muster with voters after an initial period on the bench. To continue in office, these judges would have to win a yes/no retention election. . . .
Of course, the switch to an appointed system requires voter approval through a constitutional amendment, once the General Assembly approves a plan over two legislative sessions. “So part of our pitch is: Let people vote,” says Lynn A. Marks of the Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts reform group. Indeed, how can critics of merit selection deny voters their input?
That’s a question we would love to hear answered.
The editorial is worth a full read, because it offers a good recap of the reasons we need to find a new way of selecting appellate court judges. We hope the people of Pennsylvania will get the opportunity to decide whether to do so.
Tags: appellate judges, Lynn Marks, Merit Selection, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, Philadelphia Inquirer